You are probably thinking that I don't stand behind my promises. I've done what I can for now. There is more that could be done with cruelty in mind, but I've done what I can and whether it is enough or no is my problem not yours. I know it isn't enough and I'm not asking you to perceive it that way. I asked for friendship without deserving it or expecting it, that is what I need for now. What happens next, happens next.
The promise at the beginning of this series, was that while there are several approaches to this graphic representation. The crucial part is that any dimensional representation is necessarily flawed since it requires space time. However, the universe we experience is experienced in a linear format, so there should be some relationship which shows the transitions in a way that allow for exponential compression of information, but also phase shifts through matter and beyond.
What we are looking at here is merely a representation of linearity, what happens when Non-linearity is expressed a linearity. In the prior post we looked at the transition from non-linearity to linearity, something that is really rather unique. Now we are expanding linearity.
I promised some interesting features association with the ratios we were dealing with and now I am going to keep that promise since it is the easier promise to keep.
First you must remember that a line has no area. It does have length. The point that we begin with (space is point time or CT1) lacked even length. So the first two transitions are CT1 (space) and CT2 (length without area). No we see that off of these points and lines we are going to create CT3 which will have area. What we are looking for and what we will get is exponential grown (n=2) and the r^2 equation present in all area calculations reflects this (a box is length times width and if both are equal it is l^2. We are also going to look at the lens that is created in the overlap which must have the same area features. The area of a circle (piR^2)=(pi/O)AreaO for the lens. This, of course, defines the relationship of the angle O to the radius squared.r^2=O/areaO or r=(O/areaO)^1/2 which is, not surprisingly, the exponential information equation, but this is nothing more than moving from one dimension to two which is necessarily an exponential relationship.
If we require the circle to be filled with the prior states, the equations fail and for this reason we have to assume we are dealing with models. In this case, the most likely definition of the lens is one where the lens is defined by the area as the angle O approaches zero where there is no overlap other than width of a single line and the circle itself is composed of a line moving in a circle. In other words, the single quantum point evolves as follows:
1) The point begins to spin rapidly (see the prior post for the speed) and thereby achieves linearity at the point of the big bang.
2) The point begins to rapidly move in a linear direction with no dimension but thereby creates many very fast moving lines.
3) The lines begin to curl into circles as the point density along the line increases as it spends more time at a given location along the line, (CT3) at compression of 10^4
4) The circles form lenses where they intersect.and we see 10^8 compression states.
The next step (5) is fairly obvious, the lens formed by intersecting circles begins to have circles incorporate the lens in multiple dimensions. The lens is important because at that point lines have overlapped and that is where you would find compression, the existence of an intersection of two lines might have a similar feature (ct3) but only where they overlap to form a new area would concentrations be expected to be exponentially greater. The amount of overlap in this model could account for different features/energy levels. Since unconcentrated time changes more quickly, it may be perceived as more energetic.
The moving forward to the cube relationship does not hold true to this model, not directly.
And you were thinking there wouldn't be a relationship.
For more information on this topic from the Eucliding perspective (which doesn't mention NLC because NLC didn't exist when the article were written, I direct you to: http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~breech/contest.inet.fall.12/problems/intersection-2circles.pdf
CALCULATING A HORIZON CIRCLE: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/528872/area-of-
No comments:
Post a Comment